UK1679666180

Agreed, but I do have to say, there's a difference in pointing out someone's weight in terms to baseball and making fun of him. As far as Ponson... He should be in much better shape and there's only 2 possible reasons why he got that big. 1)He has a complusive personality 2)He's lazy

I knew I hadn't started drinking yet... http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/hershiser010614/1213915.html

Rivera Disagrees. Personally, I think Tillman's a pretty good corner. He does have trouble with the speedy guys and heasn't done as well since the contact rules were inforced. There are a lot of good Corners in this draft so I am down with taking one in the first or second round. Azumah might retire and we need a good replacement. I didn't see any double team, they were in the typical Cover 2. There was a clear difference between how Seattle handled Smith and how the Bears did.

I'm sure the Cubs are scouting other players as well, everything depends on Walker. If they put Hairston at 2B, they'll need a RH utility player. I just don't know what the Cubs would be looking for if they trade Walker. Would they be looking to get a Justin Berg type prospect, from a team who might need some offense from 2B at the expense of defense? Or would they look to improve the 25 man roster? Ideally, this would set-up nicely for a 3 team trade, whomever would want Walker would be the 3rd team. Boston gets a prospect/player for Graffanino, Cubs get Graffanino/PTBNL, and that 3rd team gets Walker.

Here is the article from '03. It has been a constant debate as whether a team benefits more from having a stronger offense, stronger pitching, or a balanced approach. With numbers from 2003', I will attempt to determine the Wins Contributed (WC) by each team based on their Runs Scored for offense per game (RS) and Runs Allowed per game (RA) for pitching, given an average defense. Instead of basing it on actual wins totals for 03', I will use each team's pythagorean record (PR), which bases a team's W-L record based on RS and RA, which is ideal for this study. Method: Hitting: Using a method that is similar to calculate the team's PR and Offensive Winning % (OWP), I have squared RS and divided it by the sum of that team's RS and the RS for the League (LRS) (AL and NL are seperated), this is simply (RS²)/(RS² + LRS²) which will provide the win percentage of that team if that team had average pitching and defense based from their offensive production, I will call this (OWR). For example, if Boston had avg. pitching and defense, their overall winning % would have been 59.8% (.598). Next, we take that .598 and multiply it by 162 to see how many wins Boston would have had with avg. pitching and defense (OWR*162), which will give us 96.09 wins (TOW). Pitching: Following a similar method as mentioned above, except we will use RA and the League Runs Allowed (LRA) the only changes will be that the numerator with will be the LRA instead of the team's RA and the denominator will remain the same (LRA²)/(RA² + LRA²), I will call this (PWP) . This will give us the win percentage of a team with an avg. offense and defense based from their pitching production. To use the Boston example again, if Boston had an avg. offense and defense, their overall winning % would have 48.6% (.486). Like above, we take that .486 and multiply it by 162 to see how many wins Boston would have had with an avg. offense and defense (PWP*162), which would give us .78.86 wins (POW). Combining the two: Now that it has been determined each team's offensive and pitching win totals, we must apply it to the team's PR and then calculate what percentage of those wins were created by the offense and the pitching. This is done by adding up the wins created by the offense and the pitching (TOW+POW) & using the Boston example, it would be 96.09+78.86=174.95. Now that we have the combined win totals, we can now plug one of them to determine the winning % caused by each of them by taking the offensive win total divided by the offensive and pitching totals (TOW/ (TOW+POW)). With Boston, that would determine that the offense was responsible for 55.1% (.551) of the wins and the pitching was responsible for 44.9% (.449) of the wins in 2003'. Now using the pythagorean win total of Boston in 03' of 94 wins, we can take that .551 and multiply it by 94 to show that the Boston offense contributed to 55 wins and Boston's pitching contributed to 39 wins. The final step will be to determine which teams were offensively dominated, pitching dominated, or balanced which will be done by assigning teams with a +.525 Offensive Wins Created % as offensive based, teams with a +.525 Pitching Wins Created % as pitching dominated, and teams within the .475-.525 range as balanced. Then, we will be able to compare which of those groups had the greater success for the 2003' season. Results: NL: Offense Created Wins Atlanta-52 St. Louis-49 Houston-47 Colorado-45 Philadelphia-45 San Francisco-44 Florida-42 Pittsburgh-40 Chicago-40 Arizona-39 Montreal-38 Milwaukee-35 Cincinnati-33 San Diego-33 New York-31 Los Angeles-30 Pitching Created Wins Los Angeles-53 San Francisco-49 Houston-47 Philadelphia-45 Florida-45 Chicago-45 Arizona-45 Atlanta-44 Montreal-42 St. Louis-39 New York-37 Pittsburgh-36 San Diego-33 Colorado-33 Milwaukee-31 Cincinnati-30 Offensive Created Win % Colorado-.576 St. Louis-.556 Atlanta-.541 Milwaukee-.530 Cincinnati-.527 San Diego-.503 Philadelphia-.497 Houston-.494 Florida-.483 Montreal-.477 Chicago-.471 San Francisco-.469 Arizona-.469 New York-.465 Los Angeles-.365 Pitching Created Win % (this is just the reversal of the Offense Created Win %) Los Angeles-.635 New York-.535 Arizona-.531 San Francisco-.531 Chicago-.529 Montreal-.523 Florida-.517 Houston-.506 Philadelphia-.503 San Diego-.497 Cincinnati-.473 Milwaukee-.470 Atlanta-.459 St. Louis-.444 Colorado-.424 AL: Offensive Wins Created Boston-55 New York- 48 Toronto-47 Seattle-44 Kansas City-42 Minnesota-42 Chicago-42 Oakland-42 Texas-39 Anaheim-37 Baltimore-36 Tampa Bay-34 Cleveland-34 Detroit-23 Pitching Wins Created Seattle-53 Oakland-52 New York-48 Chicago-46 Minnesota-43 Anaheim-43 Toronto-40 Boston-39 Cleveland-39 Baltimore-38 Kansas City-36 Tampa Bay-34 Texas-30 Detroit-26 Offensive Wins Created % Texas-.569 Boston-.551 Toronto-.542 Kansas City-.540 New York-.500 Minnesota-.495 Tampa Bay-.495 Baltimore-.492 Chicago-.478 Anaheim-.468 Cleveland-.465 Detroit-.463 Seattle-.455 Oakland-.448 Pitching Wins Contributed % Oakland-.552 Seattle-.545 Detroit-.537 Cleveland-.535 Anaheim-.532 Chicago-.522 Baltimore-.508 Tampa Bay-.505 Minnesota-.505 New York-.500 Kansas City-.460 Toronto-.458 Boston-.449 Texas-.431 Offense dominated NL teams: Colorado-78 wins St. Louis-88 wins Atlanta-96 wins Milwaukee-66 wins Cincinnati-63 Total Wins:391 Avg. Win Total per Team:78.2 Balanced NL teams: San Diego-66 wins Philadelphia-88 wins Houston-94 wins Florida-88 wins Pittsburgh-76 wins Montreal-80 wins Total Wins:492 Avg. Win Total per Team:82 Pitching dominated NL Teams: Chicago-85 wins San Francisco-93 wins Arizona-84 wins New York-69 wins Los Angeles-83 wins Total Wins:494 Avg. win Total per Team:82.8 Offense dominated AL Teams: Boston-94 wins Toronto-87 wins Texas-69 wins Kansas City-78 Total Wins:328 Avg. win Total per Team:82 Balanced AL Teams: New York-96 wins Minnesota-85 wins Baltimore-74 wins Tampa Bay-68 wins Chicago-88 wins Total Wins:411 Avg. win Total per Team:82.2 Pitching dom. AL Teams: Seattle-97 wins Oakland-96 wins Anaheim-80 wins Cleveland-73 wins Detroit-49 wins Total Wins:483 Avg. win Total per Team:79 NL and AL combined: Offense dom. Teams: Colorado-78 wins Boston-94 wins St. Louis-88 wins Toronto-87 wins Atlanta-96 wins Texas-69 wins Milwaukee-66 wins Kansas City-78 wins Cincinnati-63 wins Total Wins:719 Avg. Wins per Team:79.88 Balanced Teams: San Diego-66 wins New York (AL)-96 wins Philadelphia-90 wins Minnesota-85 wins Houston-94 wins Baltimore-74 wins Florida-87 wins Tampa Bay-68 wins Pittsburgh-76 wins Chicago (AL)-88 wins Montreal-80 wins Total wins:904 Avg. Total per Team:82.18 Pitching dom. Teams: Seattle-97 wins Chicago (NL)-85 wins Oakland-94 wins San Francisco-93 wins Arizona-84 wins Anaheim-80 wins Los Angeles-83 wins Cleveland-73 wins New York (NL)-69 wins Detroit-49 wins Total Wins:807 Avg. Wins per Team:80.7 Conclusion: There is a small win total variance between teams, but pitching dominated teams had a slightly greater chance of reaching .500. The offensive dominated teams had 4 of the 9 teams above .500, the balanced teams had 6 of the 11 teams above .500, and the pitching dominated teams had 6 of the 10 teams above .500. The balanced teams had a higher Win Total per team, followed by pitching dominated teams, and then by the offense dominated teams. Of the 8 playoff teams, 2 were offensive teams, 3 were balanced, and 3 were pitching dominated. Overall, the balanced teams had the better record per team and have shown the most success in the post-season the past 5 years. Of the last 10 teams to have played in the World Series 9 of them have been balanced, including the last 8. The last team that has played in the World Series that was not balanced was Atlanta in 99'.

I thought Dempster had shown a change-up while with the Fish? It showed the potential to be a plus pitch, he didn't throw it consistently though.

Balance is the key, I did a study a couple of years ago. Based on Runs Scored and Runs allowed, about 90% of the World Series teams over the last 5 years, have been extremely balanced offensively and pitchingwise.

Raisin, no mention of what UCLA did to NCST today? They pounded one of the best pitchers in the ACC. 2 seniors (Smith and Jensen) had very good games offensively and Brummett dominated them on the mound. Very impressive weekend.

Ryu has been throwing 5 pitches since his days at Boise, they've reduced it, I just wonder if they've thrown out the splitter.

He's put on some weight since I saw him at Lansing.

They could trade up to get Davis, Angelo would be one of the least likely I'd expect to trade up.

I was impressed by Hill today, able to throw the curve for strike, moved his FB around. It's not an overpowering FB so he has to locate well, but hitters don't hit it hard. Except to Niekro, he didn't many swings and misses on the FB. I was expecting Eyre to be in better shape, though.

At this stage, anything less than Olympic style testing is a disappointment.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/sports/baseball/mlb/philadelphia_phillies/14022257.htm

Assuming they only get a WR, some former IU QB... I'll do a mock draft... 1st TE (Leonard Pope-UGA) 2nd DB (Cedric Griffin-Texas) 3rd OLB (Stanley McGlover-Auburn) played DE can excel at OLB. 4th K (Connor Hughes-UVA) 5th-OG/OT (Kevin Boothe-Bucknell) 6th-FB Garrett Mills-Tulsa or Matt Bernstine-Wisconsin 7th-QB Erik Meyer Eastern Washington They'll need a kick returner that didn't get drafted.

Expectations? That's a tough one, he throws a good but not great FB and has shown a good breaking pitch at times. He's going to have to throwing the curve or slider more consistently to project as a middle rotation starter at this stage. Unlike many Cubs pitching prospects, he's under 200 LBs and under 6'3".

DeJesus has been very good again, they just play in a very tough SEC East. Cohen has made great strides since Madison retired. Different strengths though, Cohen good with the hitters, Madison worked well w/Pitchers (Blanton/Webb).

I still think Tillman did fine last year, he had a bad game vs. Carolina and like almost every other DB in the game, he isn't good enough to cover Smith one on one. I still blame Rivera more than Tillman for Smith smacking around the Bears. They do need a better 3rd DB not that Azumah has proven that the hip injury was worse than everyone hoped for. But, I do think getting a 3rd DB is more important than replacing Hillenmeyer, who is more of a 4th LB rather than a starting one.

Who would you say were the clubhouse leaders among the '05 Chiefs? I've heard that Fuld was one of them, I'm just curious who else would've filled that role? Speaking of Fuld, I was surprised he did not make Baseball America's top 30. There were Harvey, Gallagher, Johnson, Patterson, Layden, and Montanez all in the top 30 as well as several others who only seen limited action at Peoria (Guzman, Berg, & Billek). My question is how Fuld compares to them in overall ability and do you find it a surprise that Fuld did not make the top 30?

Ortiz has one year to go. Even I went to many UK baseball games despite watching them lose to almost every SEC team. But, I didn't work!

Btw, it looks like UCLA will be facing Jason Duncan tomorrow, he's on my Senior watch list. Also, I expect you to head to Malibu and catch UCLA vs. Pepperdine on Tuesday and let me know what you think of their 2B. :)

It might be a reach at 13 for him at this stage, he's skinny, I forget what Sean Marshall was listed at coming of VCU, but I believe it was 6'6" 180, maybe 185. Tillman is right there as well, he tops out at 94 and sits in the low 90s, has a good curve and is smooth and spot his pitches.

Donald will have to go from a toolsy SS who hasn't produced as expected to the player everyone thought he'd be. He's gifted, just shown more of it in practice rather than the game. Talentwise, he's not too far below Evan Longoria, just hasn't produced like Evan.

Raisin, Latos 6'6" about 200-205 LBs, has hit 97 on the gun, usually sits in the 92-94 range & can spin a curve. He is still growing, so there is a definite possibility of him adding more velocity, he has good mechanics for someone as young as he is. Many pitchers that tall and that young lack coordination, he's supposedly fluid. He's also good with the bat as well and has played either the OF or 1B and shown power at the plate. I like Kyle Drabek more, but unless something strange happens, he'll be gone. Drabek has a great curve and of course, being smaller and from Texas with a mid 90s FB and hammer curve, he'll get compared to either his dad or Beckett.

LaPorta plays 3b as well? I thought he was strictly C/1B? Technically, they say he can play 3B, realistically, he'll either be at 1B or maybe a corner OF'er. Most likely, he's going to be a power hitting 1B.